1.  BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

  (a)  UNISON is the largest trade union in the Agency, and takes the lead on behalf of Agency employees in negotiations and consultations with management. Of the 9,500 employees over 5,000 belong to UNISON. The extent of our membership covers all categories from manual and craft workers to environment and scientific staff through to senior managers.

  UNISON's relations with the Agency dates from before the establishment of the Agency in 1995. In two of the three predecessor bodies, the National Rivers Authority and in local authorities, UNISON was also the principal trade union. Indeed our common heritage with the Agency can be traced back to the water authorities of England and Wales which had existed prior to the privatisation of water in 1989. The creation of the National Rivers Authority was in many respects a by-product of the campaign against the original plans put forward by the then government to privatise the water industry in 1987; a campaign in which UNISON, (previously NALGO and NUPE), played an extremely prominent role.

  This position led UNISON to be closely involved with the shadow bodies which immediately pre-dated the creation of both the NRA and the Agency, and enabled UNISON to represent the interests of employees from the very outset of the process.

  (b)  The Agency's birth was not a straightforward one, for although the vision of a co-ordinated, one-stop shop approach to environment protection was shared by many, to achieve it required a significant degree of organisational change. The Agency not only inherited employees from hundreds of different employers, (each local authority was an independent employer), all with their own salaries and conditions of service, it also faced the task of bringing together the various professional, technical and scientific traditions which had existed in predecessor bodies like Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, Local Authority Waste Regulation Agencies and the National Rivers Authority. This was a tall order especially when, in the early stages of development, it was clear that different approaches were being promulgated by the various vested interests to achieve prominence in this new and innovative Agency. In UNISON's view, given the circumstances, this was bound to happen in the early stages of the Agency's life. However, what was unacceptable was the inability of the Agency to recognise the problems early enough and the absence of a cogent management ethos and strategy to properly deal with them. Moreover, when the Agency did begin to initiate organisational change it was achieved without sufficient regard being paid to the views and beliefs of the employees and their trade unions, which were based on many years experience of environment protection in predecessor bodies. Indeed, it often seemed to UNISON that the Agency had closed its mind to any lessons learned by, for example the NRA. This was regarded as rather perverse and somewhat insulting by many dedicated staff. The more worrying consequence was the loss of scarce experience and expertise to the Agency as a consequence of staff leaving as a result of the poor way in which the change process was managed. It is worth emphasising yet again that the involvement of trade union representatives from the earliest possible stage would have a marked advantage and would avoid many of the employee relations difficulties encountered at a later stage.

2.  THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TODAY

(a)   General

  In making an assessment of the Agency today, this UNISON submission will concentrate on the employee relations issues and will restrict any other comments to those which have some degree of impact upon the Agency's employees and/or their trade unions.

(b)   Bargaining Constraints

  The context in which industrial relations are conducted in the Agency is important to gaining a full understanding of the position. The Agency is a non-departmental public body whose principal sponsor is the DETR and whose secondary sponsor is the MAFF. Following devolution, the Welsh Assembly also has a significant influence on the work of the Agency in Wales. The Agency's financial relationship with Government is provided for in a financial memorandum issued by the DETR. This sets out in great detail the agency's responsibilities for its financial affairs, and includes provisions for the Agency's pay bill and moreover, places specific duties on the Agency to, for example, operate a pay system based on performance for its non-manual employees. In practice this means that it is the DETR and Treasury, and not the Agency, who ultimately controls the pay system and pay levels of the Agency. In UNISON's opinion this degree of control is not justified and leads to avoidable levels of frustration and opaqueness in the collective bargaining process. Of course, the DETR and Treasury must have control of the Agency's budget, but provided that the agency meets its statutory obligations it should be left to determine its own pay systems and pay strategy in partnership with its recognised trade unions. There is little advantage to the DETR or MAFF in getting bogged down with matters, such as pay systems, which really have little or no bearing on the Agency's delivery of its public duties. Like any public body, the Agency will always have to have regard to whatever general pay policy a particular Government may have, but beyond that, UNISON is not convinced that any further detailed controls are justified.

  The Committee is therefore invited to agree that the financial memorandum between the Agency and the DETR should be revised to take out any matters of detail concerning the Agency's pay policy, pay systems and employment provisions generally.

(c)   Partnership

  It follows from the above that UNISON believes that the pay policy, systems and employment provisions generally should be developed and agreed jointly between the Agency and its recognised trade unions within the internal bargaining mechanisms set up to do so. However, UNISON would go further by developing the relationship between trade unions and the Agency according to the principles of partnership and involvement. As things stand the Agency's management style remains stuck in the 1970s and 1980s with too many managers still unable or unwilling to recognise the advantages of full partnership working with trade union representatives. It would, though, be unfair to blame middle and line managers exclusively, because there has been insufficient commitment from the Board or Senior management towards the development of partnership principles with its internal stakeholders, namely the recognised trade unions. In UNISON's view many of the organisational change difficulties which have been met in recent years would have been identified earlier and solutions would have been found more easily if the union representatives had been directly involved in the project groups or management teams set up to tackle certain issues. This assessment applies equally to all levels of the Agency—area, regional and national.

  The Committee is therefore asked to encourage the Agency to embrace the principles of partnership and to urge them to engage in dialogue with the reocognised trade unions to put such principles into practice.

(d)   Pay Systems

  While UNISON does not wish to burden the Sub-committee with the minutia of pay systems, it is felt that it is relevant to put before the committee views which directly or indirectly have some bearing on the efficiency or effectiveness of the Agency. UNISON concedes that given its inheritance the Agency had a difficult job in trying to negotiate a new pay system to suit the requirements of all the different employee categories which exist.

i.  Salaried Staff

  A new pay structure was negotiated which featured seven broad salary bands, and which involved a performance related pay system to govern salary increases within the bands. The system has been extremely unpopular with employees from the outset. Whereas some members have a principled objection to PRP, others questioned its suitability for a public body like the agency. However most had little or no confidence in management's ability or intention to operate the system in a fair and consistent manner. These assessments have been tested in various ways by both UNISON and the Agency including the use of employee surveys. The results have shown conclusively that both managers and staff have deep concerns about the PRP system and its implementation. For example, staff who are given an assessment level only to be told at a later stage that this has to be revised downwards because either it does not comply with the expected outcomes, or that the allocated budget is insufficient to pay for it. This dissatisfaction has led to low levels of morale among staff who feel overlooked and under valued. UNISON has pressed the Agency to scrap the present system and develop a new approach based more on competency assessments and which is more closely related to the development of staff and their contribution to the work of the Agency.

  The Committee is therefore invited to agree with UNISON that the Agency should be pressed to negotiate a new pay system with the trade unions which more closely meets the needs of the staff and the environment and which is not based on the subjective assessment by managers of staff performance.

ii.  Equal Pay

  Following the introduction of the new pay system it became quickly apparent to UNISON that the Agency had a serious and worsening problem in that the legal obligations of the Equal Pay legislation were not being complied with. To the Agency's credit, an agreement was reached to set up a joint project group to identify solutions to this unsustainable situation. Without going into detail, a stage has been reached where a process has been agreed to resolve the majority of anomalies. However, the ability of the Agency to proceed with the process depends on the DETR, MAFF and the Treasury making available the necessary funding to do so. The additional money is needed to correct a series of historical anomolies inherited from predecessor bodies. This highlights the weaknesses in the present financial arrangements referred to in (b) above. In UNISON's view the Agency should be left to operate as it feels necessary subject to its overall budget. Clearly any additional expenditure needs approval from government, and to this extent UNISON strongly supports the Agency in its bid to the DETR for the necessary funding.

  The Committee is requested to support the Agency in its negotiations with the DETR, MAFF and the Treasury for an appropriate level of funding to enable the Agency to proceed with an early and full implementation of the Equal Pay solutions identified by the Agency and the trade unions jointly.

(e)   The Manual and Craft Workforce

  The manual and craft workforce were previously employees of the NRA and number approximately 1,700. They are predominantly male and have a relatively high age profile and they are primarily found in the Emergency Flood Defence workforce where they are deployed locally on various river and/or coastal flood defence duties. When the Agency was established it was agreed with the trade unions that a policy of harmonisation and single status would be applied to all employees except the 100 or so senior managers. However, this has not really happened in practice, with the picture today being not dissimilar to that which existed on day one of the Agency. Although the agreed bargaining machinery provides for one National Negotiating Group and similar arrangements at regional level, the manual workforce remain on their own pay system and their own terms and conditions which in most cases date back more than 10 years. In UNISON's opinion the Agency has failed to invest the necessary resources into the emergency workforce, and consequently there is a general air of decline around the country. In many ways the Agency creates a rod for its own back by persisting with a client/contractor split approach which by design keeps the workforce semi-detached and out of the main stream. Instead the Agency should regard the workforce as an integral and valuable element, whose worth was clearly demonstrated in the Easter Floods of 1998. The retention of this artificial internal market place is self destructive and creates unnecessary bureaucracy. The Agency has already agreed to review the present status of the manual's pay system and employment conditions, but needs to go further. In UNISON's view the Agency should scrap the present client/contractor split and should begin a process of harmonisation of all employees' terms and conditions. The Agency should also invest in the development of the manual workforce.

  The Committee is therefore invited to support UNISON's view that the Agency should scrap the client/contractor split and should begin a process of investment and development of the manual workforce.

(f)   Health and Safety

  Although the Agency is to be commended for agreeing to set up a National Joint Health and Safety Committee and for adopting an open and responsive attitude, it is of considerable concern that its safety record is a poor one compared with other similar organisations. In more recent times the Agency has taken steps to promote good health and safety standards, including an agreement to train H & S representatives and it is to be hoped that this effort will help improve the Agency's performance. However, in UNISON's view, based on the feedback received from members on the ground, there is a lack of resources devoted to the implementation of the procedures and practices that exist. The main problem appears to be that managers find it extremely difficult to effectively monitor and enforce the standards that exist. This, in part, is a symptom of the pressure and stress felt by front line managers to deliver the Agency's targets. Moreover, better systems of communication need to be developed to inform managers and employees alike about the safe systems of work which have and are developing arising from risk assessments. The Agency needs to do more than pay lip service to good health and safety standards and managers at all levels need to factor in time and resources, but particularly time, to the implementation of health and safety procedures.

  The Committee is therefore asked to require the Agency to review its H & S performance with particular regard to the application and implementation of the appropriate policies and procedures.

(g)   Fisheries

  MAFF have proposed a £1.5 million cut in the grant to the Agency, which if proceeded with will have a detrimental effect on the conservation of fishery stocks and is likely to lead to some job loss as a result. UNISON believes that to cut the grant support would amount to an unwarranted attack on the fishery stocks of the rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts of England and Wales.

  The Committee is therefore invited to press for the restoration of this £1.5 million cut in grant.

(h)   Navigation

  There has been a long and detailed examination of the navigation responsibilities of the Agency and the various other navigation authorities of England and Wales, particularly of British Waterways. The report of a study into the Anglian Waterways was completed some months ago, and broadly speaking concluded that the various authorities should co-operate more closely together in developing a common set of navigation standards and regulations. UNISON supports this initiative, although it recognises that there are powerful arguments in favour of a single navigation authority. On balance it is felt that the existing authorities should develop a more permanent partnership arrangement and be given the chance to produce a more co-ordinated approach to navigation.

  The Committee is therefore asked to promote a closer working arrangement, led by the Agency, among the various navigation authorities.

3.  THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY—ITS FUTURE

(a)   Agency Structure

  On the whole UNISON believes that the Agency is beginning to come to terms with the unique and important role it has been given by the government. With one or two exceptions UNISON does not support any further radical change to the organisational structure of the Agency. However, it is accepted that new legislation will inevitably have an impact on the Agency and from a UNISON viewpoint the essential factor is that the trade unions should be involved in the change process from the earliest possible date. It is important that the Agency is adequately resourced and given the freedom to get on with the job of protecting and enhancing the environment. However, bearing in mind the trend towards devolution and having regard to the existence of the Welsh Assembly, it may be that the Agency should adjust its regional boundaries to be coterminous with political boundaries. This would make a big contribution to brining the Agency closer to the communities it serves, and will avoid a lot of public confusion about which Agency office deals with particular areas.

  The Committee is therefore asked to seek a review of the Agency's boundaires to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support a move to political boundaries.

(b)   Recruitment Policy and Procedures

  The present composition of the Agency's workforce is predominantly white and middle class. Moreover according to surveys done, the Agency's profile in urban and inner city areas is very low. These two factors together suggest that the Agency needs to do much more to reach out to the urban populations it serves. Its public image is still conditioned by a picture of a barbour wearing country landowner or angler. This has got to change if the Agency is to properly serve all sectors of society. Moreover, more needs to be done to attract job applicants from ethnic groups and other urban dwellers. Even in parts of the country with relatively high levels of ethnic minorities such as the Midlands, Bristol and West Yorkshire, there is a woefully small number of black employees. In UNISON's view the Agency should launch a major public relations campaign aimed at both modernising and broadening its image and at the same time it should embark upon an outreach project in partnership with recognised ethnic minority group leaders to promote the Agency, and to inform potential job applicants of the wide range of job opportunities in the Agency. A similar approach should also be followed for other under-represented members of society.

  The Committee is therefore urged to secure the Agency's support for a series of initiatives designed both to modernise and broaden the Agency's image and to improve the Agency's recruitment of ethnic minorities.

(c)   General Concluding Remarks

  The Agency provides a range of vital public services to the people of England and Wales and as time goes on the Agency's recognition level is increasing among ordinary people. UNISON and the members it represents in the Agency are committed to its success. It believes if the submissions made in this memorandum were to be accepted and implemented then the Agency would more effectively harness the talents and skills of its workforce and as a result would become an even more effective champion of our environment.

October 1999